UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Class  Book  Volume 

VV  \  S’ 


Je  05-10M 


LETTER  OF  HON.  R.  J.  WALKER, 

IN  FAVOR  OF  THE  '  , 

REELECTION  OF  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

LONDON.  SEPT.  30.  1864 


The  succession  of  days  and  years  and 
©enturies  is  noted  in  calendars;  but  it 
is  great  events,  constituting  historical 
epochs,  that  mark  the  progress  and  des¬ 
tiny  of  our  race.  Decisive  battles,  vast 
reforms,  civil  or  religious,  great  scien¬ 
tific  discoveries  or  mechanical  inven¬ 
tions,  dynastic  changes,  political  revolu¬ 
tions,  the  union  or  dismemberment  of 
states,  the  birth  or  death  of  republics, 
the  rise  or  fall  of  empires — these  are 
the  deep  notches  in  the  groove  of  time, 
the  mighty  landmarks  in  the  pathway 
of  humanity.  It  is  the  fate  of  the 
American  Union,  involving  the  liberty 
erf  our  country  and  mankind,  that  is  to 
be  decided  in  our  approaching  Presiden¬ 
tial  election.  How  paltry  are  all  party 
questions  in  the  presence  of  an  issue  so 
transcendent  as  this !  How  dare  we 
mingle  old  party  names  or  •  conflicts 
with  such  a  question,  when  the  life  of 
the  Union  is  trembling  in  the  balance! 
The  maintenance  of  the  Union  is  the 
one  majestic  question,  and  the  Union 
party,  in  name,  and  in  fact,  is  the  only 
one  that  should  exist,  until  this  great 
issue  is  decided.  Then,  when  the  Union 
is  rescued  from  present  and  future  peril, 


we  may  exhume  the  past,  use  old  party 
names,  or  discuss  old  party  issues,  but 
until  then  to  unfold  a  party  banner,  and 
revive  old  party  prejudices,  is  treason 
to  our  country  and  mankind.  It  is  not 
Democrats  alone,  or  Republicans  alone, 
as  separate  parties  marshalled  against 
each  other,  that  can  save  the  Union. 
During  this  struggle  for  the  Union,  we 
do  not  hear  of  Democratic  or  Republican 
admirals  or  generals,  divisions  or  regi¬ 
ments  ;  no,  we  have  only  one  great 
Union  army,  discarding  all  party  names 
or  symbols,  and  fighting  only  for  and 
under  the  banner  of  the  Union.  It  is 
then  a  grave  objection  to  the  Chicago 
McClellan  Convention,  that,  in  such  a 
crisis  as  this,  it  summoned  only  a  Demo¬ 
cratic  Convention,  and  appealed  only 
to  the  Democratic  party  to  save  the  Gov¬ 
ernment.  As  well  might  we  summon 
only  a  Democratic  army  to  fight  the 
battles  of  our  country,  as  conduct  such 
an  election  as  this  under  any  old  party 
name  and  banner.  Thousands  of  Repub 
licans  as  well  as  Democrats,  together, 
under  the  banner  of  the  Union,  fight 
now  the  battles  of  their  country.  Thou¬ 
sands  of  Republican  as  well  as  Demo- 


2 


i 


cratic  soldiers  sleep  in  their  bloody 
shrouds,  or  lie  wounded  on  beds  of 
agoriy ;  but  who  dare  ask  to  what  party 
they  belonged  ?  It  was  an  unholy  am¬ 
bition,  stimulated  by  party  leaders,  a 
thirst  for  office  and  emoluments,  that 
rallied  under  an  old  party  name  at 
Chicago,  when  the  whole  people  should 
have  been  summoned  to  the  rescue. 

And  who  met  in  council  at  Chicago  ? 
Was  it  the  friends  of  the  Union  ?  Uo, 
it  was  Democrats,  as  they  called  them¬ 
selves,  whether  unionists  or  disunion- 
ists.  Avowed  disunionists  constituted 
a  large  and  influential  portion  of  the 
Convention  (profaning  the  name  of 
Democrats)  that  met  together  at  Chi¬ 
cago.  Who  were  Vallandigliam  and 
Harris  and  Long  and  many  other  of 
their  compeers,  who  not  only  met  to¬ 
gether  at  Chicago,  but  some  of  whom 
were  received  with  shouts  of  applause, 
and  resolutions  moved  by  some  of  them 
unanimously  adopted.  It  was  a  meet¬ 
ing  of  loyal  men  and  disloyal  peace  and 
war  men,  unionists  and  disuniouists. 
Every  disunionist  is  a  traitor.  He  is 
for  the  overthrow  of  the  Republic,  upon 
the  demand  of  rebels  in  arms  against 
the  Government.  Every  peace  man 
now  on  the  Chicago  McClellan  platform 
is  a  disunionist  and  a  traitor,  because  he 
knows,  in  his  inmost  soul,  that  no  peace 
can  be  obtained  but  upon  the  ultimatum 
of  Jefferson  Davis,  now  officially  pro¬ 
claimed  by  him  through  the  secre¬ 
tary  of  state  to  foreign  Governments, 
namely,  the  severance  of  the  Union, 
and  the  establishment  throughout  the 
South  of  a  separate  slave-ho’ding  em¬ 
pire.  Most  of  these  peace  men  openly 
avow  their  disunion  doctrines,  while 
others  attempt  to  conceal  their  trea¬ 
son,  under  the  transparent  mask  of  an 
“  armistice,”  a  “  cessation  of  hostilities,” 
and  an  ultimate  “  convention  of  the 
States,”  ignominiously  declaring,  at  the 
same  time,  by  their  platform  resolutions 
at  Chicago,  that  to  suppress  the  rebel¬ 
lion  by  war  has  proved  a  failure.  What 
truly  loyal  man,  by  voting  for  their  can¬ 
didates,  will  indorse  at  the  polls  such  a 


platform  as  this  ?  It  is  a  surrender  of 
our  country’s  honor — it  is  a  capitulation, 
upon  the  demand  of  Southern  traitors, 
whose  hands  are  dripping  with  the 
warm  life  blood  of  our  sons  and  broth¬ 
ers,  and  who  now  boldly  and  defiantly 
pledge  themselves  to  foreign  Govern¬ 
ments,  as  they  always  had  declared  to 
us,  that  they  will  have  no  peace  unless 
based  upon  disunion.  Did  a  Democratic 
Convention  ever  before  receive  avowed 
Disunionists  and  traitors  among  it*  num¬ 
ber  ?  Did  it  ever  before  trail  in  the 
dust  the  glorious  flag  of  our  country? 
Did  it  ever  agree  before,  that  our  flag 
should  be  torn  down  from  half  the 
States  and  territory  of  the  Union,  and 
replaced  by  a  foreign  standard,  having 
upon  it  but  one  emblazonry — the  divinity 
and  perpetuity  of  Slavery  ?  And  shall  we 
treat  with  .the  Confederate  authorities 
on  this  basis  ?  Ho ;  while  we  will  gladly 
treat  with  States  and  people  desiring  to 
return  to  the  Union ,  with  Jefferson  Davis 
and  his  Cabinet  brandishing  over  our 
heads  the  two-edged  sword  of  Slavery 
and  disunion,  we  will,  in  the  emphatic 
words  of  General  Jackson,  “  negotiate 
only  from  the  mouths  of  our  cannon .” 

General  Jackson  was,  in  truth,  the 
father  and  founder  of  the  Democratic 
party.  Prior  to  his  first  nomination  in 
1823,  in  the  election  of  Jefferson,  Mad¬ 
ison,  and  Monroe,  the  parties  were 
known  as  Eederal  and  Republican.  In 
the  fall  of  1823,  I  united  with  a  few 
friends  in  calling,  at  Pittsburg,  Pennsyl¬ 
vania,  the  fikst  Democratic  meeting,  by 
which  General  Jackson  was  nominated 
as  the  Democratic  candidate  for  the 
Presidency  of  the  United  States.  I 
offered  the  resolutions  in  his  favor 
adopted  by  that  meeting,  calling  the 
Democratic  State  Convention  of  Penn¬ 
sylvania  which  confirmed  that  nomina¬ 
tion  in  March,  1824.  I  attended  that 
Convention,  as  a  delegate  from  Pitts¬ 
burg,  and  wrote  the  address  of  the  Con¬ 
vention  to  the  Democracy  of  the  State 
and  of  the  Union  on  that  momentous 
occasion.  I  supported  General  Jackson 
for  the  Presidency  in  1823  (my  first 


3 


$ 

C 

c 


J 

C 

m 

l 

k 

I? 

0 


ft 


n- 


0  ' 


J 

0 


J 


vote),  1824,  1828,  and  1882,  and  uni¬ 
formly  adhered  to  the  Democratic  party 
until  after  the  rebellion  of  1861. 

During  the  great  nullification  and  se¬ 
cession  question  of  South  Carolina,  on 
the  first  Monday  of  January,  1833,  at 
Natchez,  Mississippi,  I  made  the  open¬ 
ing  speech,  then  published,  against  nul¬ 
lification  and  secession,  in  favor  of 
“  war,”  if  necessary  to  maintain  the 
Union — in  favor  of  “ coercion to  put 
down  rebellion  in  any  State.  The  Le¬ 
gislature  of  Mississippi  indorsed  that 
speech,  and  passed  resolutions  declaring 
nullification  and  secession  to  be  treason , 
and,  upon  that  issue,  I  was  elected  by 
the  Legislature  to  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States.  If  Mississippi,  under 
the  influence  of  Jetferson  Davis,  and 
other  traitor  leaders,  has  since  that 
period  abandoned  those  principles,  she 
cannot  expect  me  to  follow  her,  and 
thereby  surrender  opinions  which  I 
have  uniformly  maintained  and  advo¬ 
cated  throughout  my  life,  but  more 
especially  from  1833  until  the  present 
period.  Mississippi  (whose  prosperity 
I  would  restore  by  bringing  her  back 
to  the  Union)  indorsed  those  opinions 
when  she  elected  me  to  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  over  an  avowed  and 
distinguished  secessionist  (George  Poin¬ 
dexter),  after  a  contest  of  unexampled 
violence,  personal  and  political,  extend¬ 
ing  from  January,  1833,  to  January, 
1836. 

It  was  on  that  occasion  that  General 
Jackson  wrote  his  celebrated  letter  in 
favor  of  my  election  and  sustaining  my 
political  course.  It  was  after  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  secession  ordinance  by 
Carolina,  that  General  Jackson  sent  our 
war  vessels  to  Charleston  to  hold  and 
blockade  the  harbor,  and  our  troops, 
under  the  illustrious  Scott,  to  maintain, 
by  force,  if  necessary,  the  authority  of 
the  Federal  Government  over  the  forts 
commanding  the  city  of  Charleston. 
Let  us  suppose  that  the  rebels  had  then 
shot  down  our  flag,  captured  our  forts, 
made  war  upon  the  Union,  and  proceed¬ 
ed  to  dissolve  it  by  force — let  us  sup¬ 


pose  that  a  committee  from  any  con¬ 
vention  had  then  dared  to  nominate 
him  for  the  Presidency  upon  such  a 
platform  as  that  adopted  at  Chicago, 
proposing  an  armistice  and  cessation  of 
hostilities  until  a  National  Convention 
could  be  assembled,  accompanied  by  the 
declaration  that  the  rebellion  could  not 
be  crushed  by  war,  who  doubts  what 
would  have  been  the  course  of  that  de¬ 
voted  patriot  ?  He  would  have  stamped 
the  disgraceful  and  treasonable  resolu¬ 
tions  under  his  feet,  and  indignantly 
scouted  the  traitors  who  offered  them. 
And  now  this  McClellan  Convention  at 
Chicago  professes  to  represent  the  Dem¬ 
ocratic  party.  As  Jefferson  was  the 
founder  of  the  Republican  party,  J ackson 
was  the  father  of  the  Democratic  party. 
Now,  with  perhaps  one  exception,  is 
there  a  single  member  of  that  Conven¬ 
tion  (assuming  the  name  of  ‘  Democrat¬ 
ic’)  that  (like  myself)  supported  Gen¬ 
eral  Jackson  in  1823,  1824,  1828,  and 
1832,  and  uniformly  adhered  to  the 
Democratic  party  until  after  the  rebel¬ 
lion  of  1861 ? 

What  right  had  that  Convention  to 
assume  the  name  of  Democracy,  while 
trampling  upon  the  advice  of  the  found¬ 
er  of  the  party,  and  all  its  great  and 
vital  principles?  How  dare  they  offer 
an  ‘armistice’  and  ‘the  cessation  of 
hostilities’  to  rebels  in  arms  against 
their  country,  especially  when  the  so- 
called  rebel  government  had  again  and 
again  declared  that  they  would  nego¬ 
tiate  upon  no  terms,  except  the  ac¬ 
knowledgment  of  their  independence, 
and  the  definitive  dissolution  of  the 
Union  ?  But,  above  all,  how  dare  they 
record  the  disgraceful  and  treasonable 
falsehood,  that  the  war  to  suppress  the 
rebellion  had  failed,  and  ask  the  free¬ 
men  of  America  to  indorse  at  the  polls 
such  a  declaration  ? 

And  has,  indeed,  all  the  blood  of 
patriots  shed  in  defence  of  the  Union  in 
this  war,  been  poured  out  in  vain  ?  Ye 
patriot  soldiers!  now  in  the  field,  say, 
are  you  unable  or  unwilling  to  suppress 
the  rebellion  ?  Say  it  not  only  in  words, 


4 


but  answer  the  foul  accusation  by  your 
votes  in  the  approaching  Presidential 
election. 

The  Chicago  McClellan  Convention 
says  that  the  war  is  a  failure,  and  that 
therefore  there  must  be  an  armistice  and 
a  cessation  of  hostilities.  Mill  not  your 
answer  at  the  polls  be  this:  ‘It  is  a 
foul  and  treasonable  falsehood  ?  ’ 

And  is  this  war  for  the  Union  indeed 
a  failure?  Let  our  many  and  well- 
fought  battles  upon  the  ocean  and  the 
land  answer  the  question.  Let  a  coun¬ 
try  nearly  as  large  as  half  of  Europe, 
taken  from  the  rebels  since  the  war 
commenced,  respond.  Let  Shiloh,  and 
Donaldson,  and  Gettysburg  and  Vicks¬ 
burg,  and  Port  Hudson,  and  Hew 
Orleans,  and  the  Mississippi  from  its 
source  to  its  mouth,  answer.  Why,  this 
wretched  calumny  had  scarcely  been 
uttered  by  the  McClellan  Convention, 
when  Sherman,  the  great  commander, 
and  his  army  had  washed  out  the  accu¬ 
sation  in  the  blood  of  the  vanquished, 
and  unfolded  our  banner  at  Atlanta,  the 
grand  military  strategic  centre  of  Geor¬ 
gia,  never  to  be  recalled.  And  while 
the  shouts  of  the  great  victory  in  Geor¬ 
gia  were  still  sounding  in  our  ears, 
Oppequan  responded  to  the  thunders  of 
Atlanta,  and  the  heroic  Sheridan,  after 
a  decided  victory,  was  driving  the  rebel 
army  from  the  valley  of  Virginia.  Was 
Sherman’s  campaign  from  Memphis  and 
Hashville  to  Chattanooga,  and  from 
Chattanooga  to  Atlanta,  a  failure  ?  Why, 
that  campaign  is  unsurpassed  in  history. 
Was  Grant’s  Potomac  advance  a  failure  ? 
What,  the  hero  of  the  great  campaign 
of  the  West,  terminating  with  the  cap¬ 
ture  of  Vicksburg  and  its  garrison, 
not  know,  or  do  his  duty!  Was  the 
victory  of  the  Wilderness  a  failure,  or 
the  destruction  in  successive  battles  of 
one  third  of  Lee’s  army,  together  with 
the  seizure  of  the  great  W eldon  Railroad, 
or  the  repulse  there  of  the  Confederate 
attack — were  these  failures  ?  Recollect, 
Grant  was  Lieutenant-General,  subor¬ 
dinate  only  to  the  President  and  Secre¬ 
tary  of  War,  in  planning  the  whole 


campaign,  and,  while  too  much  credit 
cannot  be  given  to  the  heroic  Sherman 
and  noble  Sheridan,  and  their  gallant 
armies,  yet,  it  must  be  remembered, 
that  their  great  victories  and  strategic 
military  movements  are  but  a  part  of 
Grant’s  plan — concentrating  the  three 
armies  of  the  Potomac,  the  Shenandoah, 
and  the  West,  so  as  to  seize  and  hold 
all  the  roads  connecting  with  Richmond, 
and  capture  the  Confederate  army  and 
government. 

And  now  as  to  our  navy.  Were  the 
gallant  deeds  of  Admiral  Porter  at 
Vicksburg,  on  the  Mississippi  River,  the 
Arkansas,  and  the  Red  River,  failures? 
Were  the  destruction  of  the  forts  protect¬ 
ing  Hew  Orleans  and  the  capture  of  that 
city  by  the  illustrious  Farragut  failures  ? 
Were  the  capture  or  destruction  by 
that  gallant  man,  aided  by  General  Gran¬ 
ger,  of  the  forts  commanding  the  Bay  of 
Mobile,  together  with  the  occupation  of 
its  harbor  by  our  fleet — and  the  destruc¬ 
tion  there  of  the  Confederate  navy 
— were  these  failures  ?  Were  the  cap¬ 
ture  of  the  forts  and  city  of  Pensacola, 
of  all  the  Florida  forts,  and  the  fortifica¬ 
tions  commanding  Savannah— the  de¬ 
feat  of  the  Merrimac  and  Tennessee— 
the  destruction  of  the  Alabama — the 
capture  of  Port  Royal,  and  of  the  forts 
which  commanded  it — were  these  fail¬ 
ures?  Ho;  the  war  is  not  a  failure. 
It  is  a  glorious  and  trancendent  success. 
Already  the  whole  Southern  and  South¬ 
western  coast  is  ours.  The  whole  of  the 
Mississippi  is  ours,  with  far  more  than 
a  thousand  miles  of  its  course  from 
Columbus  to  its  mouth,  and  even  to  a 
considerable  extent  up  the  Mississippi 
and  Missouri,  which  had  been  once  in 
the  hands  of  the  enemy.  Chesapeake 
Bay  is  ours,  and  all  its  tributaries,  from 
the  Potomac  to  the  James  River.  The 
whole  coast  of  Horth  and  South  Caro¬ 
lina,  of  Florida,  Alabama,  Mississippi, 
Louisiana,  and  Texas,  with  vast  por¬ 
tions  of  the  interior,  including  many  im¬ 
pregnable  positions,  is  ours.  Tennessee, 
one  of  the  seceded  States,  is  now 
wholly  ours.  Kentucky  is  loyal.  Mis- 


5 


souri  is  ours,  and  has  abolished  Sla¬ 
very.  Maryland  is  ours,  and  has,  I 
believe,  uprooted  Slavery  also.  Our 
whole  Territorial  domain,  greater  in 
extent  than  one  half  of  Europe  (and 
about  Slavery  in  which  this  contest 
began),  is  now  wholly  ours.  Not  a 
rebel  flag  floats  within  its  limits.  "When 
before  were  such  mighty  conquests 
achieved  within  so  short  a  period  ? 
Why,  the  conquests  of  Alexander,  of 
Caesar  and  Napoleon  covered  no  such 
extent  of  territory.  And,  ‘  we  take  no 
steps  backward.’  Where  our  flag  now 
is  once  unfolded  in  any  part  of  rebel- 
dom,  there  it  continues  to  float,  and  will 
float  forever.  What  are  we  to  negotiate 
about  ?  Is  it  as  to  giving  up  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi  and  its  tributaries,  together 
with  New  Orleans,  Vicksburg,  and 
Tennessee?  Is  West  Virginia,  which 
has  been  admitted  as  a  new  Free  State, 
to  be  surrendered?  Are  Fortress  Mon¬ 
roe  and  the  Chesapeake  to  be  abandon¬ 
ed?  Is  the  rebel  flag  to  float  at  Alex¬ 
andria,  and  on  the  heights  of  Arling¬ 
ton  ;  and  are  rebel  cannon  to  be  planted 
there,  in  sight  of  and  to  command  the 
very  capital  of  the  Union  ?  Are  we  to 
insult  loyal  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Mary¬ 
land,  and  Delaware,  by  negotiating 
about  them?  Are  we  to  give  back 
Western  to  Eastern  Virginia  ?  Where 
is  the  line  of  division  to  be  run,  and 
what  armies  would  be  strong  enough 
to  maintain  peace  upon  the  border  ? 
What  portion  of  the  mighty  Territories 
uniting  us  with  the  Pacific  are  to  be 
surrendered  ?  Are  we  to  turn  over  to 
the  cruel  despotism  of  their  bloody  and 
relentless  masters,  the  millions  of  loyal 
people  of  the  South,  to  whom  we  have 
given  the  most  sacred  pledge  of  the 
protection  of  the  Union  ?  And,  last  of 
all,  are  the  two  millions  of  slaves,  as 
Jefferson  Davis  complains,  who  have 
been  emancipated  by  the  constitutional 
war  proclamation  of  President  Lincoln, 
are  they  to  be  remanded  to  Slavery, 
including  the  thousands  who  have  so 
gallantly  fought  in  our  defence  ?  And 
as  to  Slavery,  or  what,  if  any,  may  be 


left  of  it,  when  the  war  is  over,  are  w© 
to  abandon  the  unquestionable  right  to 
abolish  it,  as  Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  friends 
propose,  by  a  constitutional  amend¬ 
ment?  Is  Jefferson  Davis  to  come  back 
again  as  Senator  from  Mississippi  ?  Are 
the  traitors  Cobb  and  Thompson  to  take 
their  places  in  the  McClellan  Cabinet? 
Is  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  (as  he  boasted) 
to  call  the  roll  of  his  slaves  o*n  the  Bos¬ 
ton  Common?  Slavery,  we  know,  was 
the  sole  cause  of  the  war.  It  was 
Slavery  that  fired  the  first  gun  at  Sum¬ 
ter,  and  demanded  to  rule  or  ruin  the 
country.  It  was  in  the  name  of  Slavery 
that  the  South  seceded ;  and  it  was  to 
extend  and  perpetuate  Slavery,  as  a 
blessed  and  divine  institution,  that  they 
avowedly  framed  the  Confederate  con¬ 
stitution.  In  the  debates  of  Congress 
of  1860-  61,  in  the  proceedings  of  .the 
Committee  of  1833,  in  the  acts  of  the 
Peace  Congress,  in  the  various  seces¬ 
sion  ordinances,  by  the  very  terms  of 
the  Confederate  constitution,  Slavery 
was  the  sole  cause  of  this  war  upon  the 
Government.  Slavery  was  and  is  our 
great  enemy,  and  shall  we  not  destroy 
it?  Slavery  was  the  sole  cause  of  the 
war,  and  shall  it  not  be  eradicated  ? 
When  the  patient  calls  for  a  physician, 
he  seeks  for  the  source  of  the  disease, 
so  as  not  merely  to  alleviate  present 
pain,  but  to  remove  the  cause,  and  pre¬ 
vent  relapses  or  successive  attacks.  If 
he  deals  only  with  palliatives,  to  assuage 
for  a  brief  period  the  present  suffering, 
when  he  can  remove  the  cause,  and  re¬ 
store  the  patient  to  permanent  and  per¬ 
fect  health,  he  is  but  a  quack  and  an 
impostor. 

The  party  supporting  Mr.  Lincoln  is 
composed  of  men  of  all  the  old  parties. 
Its  candidate  for  the  Presidency  is  from 
the  North,  and  belonged  to  the  late 
Republican  party.  Its  candidate  for  the 
Vice  Presidency,  a  brave,  loyal,  Union- 
loving  man,  is  from  the  South,  and  be¬ 
longed  (like  myself)  to  the  o’d  Demo¬ 
cratic  party.  But  the  Baltimore  Con¬ 
vention,  in  the  spirit  of  true  nationality 
and  patriotism,  discarded  all  old  party 


6 


names  or  issues.  It  acted  only  in  the 
name  of  the  Union,  and  as  one  great 
Union  party,  and  asked  all  patriots, 
dismissing  for  the  present  all  old  party 
names  or  issues,  to  unite  with  it  for  the 
salvation  of  the  Union. 

My  first  objection,  then,  to  the  organi¬ 
zation  against  Mr.  Lincoln  is,  that  it  is 
a  mere  party  organization,  arrayed  un¬ 
der  an  old  party  name,  and  marching 
under  an  old  party  banner.  In  the 
midst  of  a  great  contest  like  this,  when 
all  old  party  names  and  prejudices 
should  be  forgotten,  and  when  Demo¬ 
crats  and  Republicans  should  be  united 
as  brethren  in  the  one  grand  etfort  to 
suppress  the  rebellion,  the  Chicago 
McClellan  Convention  reopens  old  party 
strifes,  renews  old  party  issues,  and, 
denouncing  Republicans,  assumes  the 
name  and  professes  to  represent  the 
Democratic  party.  It  was  the  banner 
of  the  Union  that  wras  raised  by  the 
Convention  at  Baltimore,  and  the  sal¬ 
vation  of  the  Union,  with  its  rescue 
from  present  and  future  perils,  the  sup¬ 
pression  of  the  rebellion,  with  the  re¬ 
moval  of  the  cause,  constituted  the  only 
issues  presented  by  that  Convention  to 
the  whole  of  the  loyal  States  of  all 
parties. 

It  was  far  otherwise  at  Chicago.  It 
was  a  mere  assemblage  of  partisans, 
some  for,  and  some  against  the  Union, 
in  the  search  of  power  and  emoluments. 
It  was  the  flag  of  the  Union  that  was 
given  to  the  breeze  at  Baltimore.  It  was 
the  flag  of  a  party  that  was  unfolded 
at  Chicago.  ‘For  the  Union ’  was 
written  on  the  flag  of  the  one — ‘For 
the  Democratic  party  ’  was  inscribed 
on  the  standard  of  the  other.  It  was 
said  that  the  Baltimore  Convention  has 
made  the  abolition  of  Slavery  one  of  its 
issues ;  but,  as  well  might  it  be  objected 
that  it  had  made  the  prosecution  of  the 
war,  or  the  maintenance  of  the  army 
or  navy,  part  of  its  creed.  The  Eman¬ 
cipation  Proclamation  of  the  President 
had  its  whole  constitutional  force  as  a 
war  measure  to  save  the  Union,  and, 
as  such,  it  was  adopted  by  Mr.  Lin¬ 


coln  as  ex-officio  *  commander-in-chief 
of  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United 
States.’  That  it  was,  as  a  war  meas¬ 
ure,  perfectly  constitutional,  I  have 
never  doubted,  and  so  declared  in  an 
article  published  at  the  time  in  The  Con¬ 
tinental  Magazine.  It  is  the  duty  of 
all  persons,  not  aliens,  to  unite  with  the 
President  in  suppressing  a  rebellion. 
Slaves,  in  the  relation  which  they  occupy 
to  the  National  Government  under  the 
Federal  Constitution,  are  ‘ persons.'1  As 
persons ,  they  are  thrice  named  in  the 
Constitution,  and  by  no  other  name 
whatever.  Especially,  under  the  clause 
providing  for  direct  taxation,  they  are 
enumerated  as  persons ,  not  valued  as 
property.  The  term  ‘  person  ’  is  used 
more  frequently  in  the  Constitution 
than  any  other,  and  it  is  applied  ex¬ 
pressly  to  slaves,  and  to  the  whole 
people  of  the  United  States,  including 
the  President  and  Vice  President,  who 
are  designated  therein  as  persons.  This 
very  question,  whether  slaves  are  per¬ 
sons  or  property  under  the  Constitution, 
arose  in  the  great  case  of  Groves  vs. 
Slaughter,  when,  in  1841  (with  a  single 
dissenting  opinion,  that  of  Judge  Bald¬ 
win),  after  the  fullest  argument  on  both 
sides,  it  was  unanimously  decided  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
that  slaves,  in  the  relation  which  they 
hold  to  the  National  Government  under 
theFederalConstitution,  are  persons  only , 
and  not  property.  Were  it  otherwise, 
Massachusetts  could  not  forbid  the  in¬ 
troduction  of  slaves  from  the  South  for 
sale  there  as  merchandise ;  for  Massa¬ 
chusetts  could  not  prohibit  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  the  cotton  or  any  property 
of  the  South  for  sale  as  merchandise 
within  her  limits,  for  that  would  have 
been  a  prohibition  of  the  exports  from 
State  to  State ,  which  is  forbidden  by 
the  Federal  Constitution.  My  own 
elaborate  argument  before  the  Court, 
as  one  of  the  counsel  in  that  case,  will 
be  found  in  the  appendix  to  the  first 
edition  of  the  15th  volume  of  Peters’s 
Reports.  As  persons ,  the  President  has 
a  right  to  call  for  the  aid  of  all  residing 


7 


in  the  United  States,  except  aliens,  to 
suppress  the  rebellion.  He  has  a  right 
to  call  for  the  services  of  the  loyal  or 
rebel  masters  for  such  a  purpose,  as 
well  as  for  the  service  of  their  slaves. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  masters, 
whether  rebel  or  loyal,  may  be  called 
and  even  forced  by  conscription  into 
the  army  to  suppress  the  rebellion. 
Would  it  not  then  be  strange  if  the 
master  could  exempt,  his  slaves  from 
similar  services  ?  The  only  right  of  the 
master  recognized  by  the  Constitution, 
is  to  the  ‘  service  or  labor  ’  of  his  slaves. 
But  he  has  a  right  equally  strong  to  his 
own  service  or  labor ;  yet  both  must 
yield  to  the  paramount  right  of  the 
Government  to  the  services  of  both  or 
either  to  suppress  the  rebellion.  There 
is  not  a  single  word  in  the  Federal  Con¬ 
stitution  which,  either  by  inference  or 
express  declaration,  exempts  slaves, 
more  than  any  other  persons,  from  the 
call  of  the  Federal  Government  to  aid 
in  suppressing  a  rebellion.  Such  is 
the  construction  given  by  the  South  to 
the  so-called  Confederate  constitution, 
which  is  much  more  stringent  than  ours 
in  that  respect,  for  it  recognizes  slaves 
as  property ;  yet,  the  rebel  authorities, 
the  rebel  congress  and  government, 
force  slaves,  even  by  conscription,  to 
perform  military  duty — to  dig  the 
trenches — to  make  the  earthworks — to 
erect  the  barracks  and  arsenals — to 
help  to  make  the  cannon,  small  arms, 
and  powder,  and  vessels  of  war — to  con¬ 
struct  the  fortifications — to  transport 
the  provisions,  munitions,  and  cannon 
for  their  armies,  together  with  the  tents 
and  military  equipage — to  raise  the  food 
indispensable  for  the  support  of  their 
military  forces — and,  of  course,  they 
would,  if  they  dare,  put  arms  in  their 
hands  to  meet  us  on  the  battle  field. 
It  is  clear,  then,  not  as  a  confiscation 
of  property  (which  is  also  constitutional 
under  certain  circumstances),  but  as 
persons ,  that  we  have  a  right  to  the  ser¬ 
vice  of  the  slaves  as  well  as  of  their 
masters  to  suppress  the  rebellion.  But 
it  is  only  by  emancipation  (with  com¬ 


pensation  for  loss  of  their  services  by 
loyal  men)  that  the  slaves  can  be  called 
into  our  army,  and  used  to  suppress  the 
rebellion.  A  call  by  the  President  for 
the  slaves  to  serve  in  our  armies,  to  risk 
their  lives  and  shed  their  blood  for  the 
Union,  accompanied  by  the  declaration 
that  they  were  still  slaves,  and,  upon 
the  termination  of  the  war,  such  as  sur¬ 
vived  would  be  restored  to  their  mas¬ 
ters,  with  whom  their  wives  and  chil¬ 
dren  must  still  remain  in  bondage, 
would  be  an  atrocious  crime,  as  well  as 
the  climax  of  all  absurdities.  Ho;  it 
is  only  by  emancipation  that  the  ser¬ 
vices  of  the  slaves  can  or  ought  to  be 
obtained  for  the  suppression  of  the 
rebellion.  The  Emancipation  Proclama¬ 
tion  then  of  the  President,  with  com¬ 
pensation  to  loyal  masters,  is  most  clear¬ 
ly  constitutional  during  the  continuance 
of  the  war,  and  as  a  war  measure  to 
suppress  the  rebellion  and  save  the 
Union,  and  such  must  be  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
to  which  tribunal  the  President  has 
properly  submitted  the  final  arbitra¬ 
ment  of  the  constitutional  question.  It 
is  true,  when  the  rebellion  is  crushed, 
the  President  can  issue  no  new  emanci¬ 
pation  proclamation.  But  neither  can 
he  then  recall  or  modify  the  one  already 
issued ;  and  if  he  had  the  power  to 
recall  the  proclamation,  it  would  be  an 
act  of  perfidy  unparalleled  in  the  history 
of  the  world.  The  nation  would  be  so 
utterly  disgraced  by  such  bad  faith  as 
would  be  involved  in  the  revocation  of 
the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  as  to 
earn  the  contempt  of  all  honest  and 
honorable  men,  and  the  loss  of  sympa¬ 
thy  of  the  industrial  classes  and  work¬ 
ing  men  of  Europe,  whose  rulers  would 
then  no  longer  fear  to  recognize  or  aid 
the  South.  It  was  the  magnificent  up¬ 
rising  of  the  working  classes  of  England 
in  favor  of  the  Union,  that  alone  saved 
both  countries  from  a  bloody  and  disas¬ 
trous  war. 

The  Emancipation  Proclamation  be¬ 
ing,  as  we  have  seen,  clearly  constitu¬ 
tional,  as  a  war  measure,  with  a  view 


.9 


8 


to  save  the  Union,  was  it,  as  such,  wise 
and  expedient  ?  We  have  seen  that  the 
rebel  South,  even  by  conscription,  when 
necessary,  used  slaves  for  military  pur¬ 
poses,  and  those  not  used  directly  in 
that  way  are  required  to  raise  bread- 
stuffs  and  provisions  (instead  of  cotton), 
to  supply  the  Confederate  army.  In¬ 
deed  the  debates  of  Congress  for  many 
years  past,  will  show  that  the  South 
boasted,  not  vainly,  of  their  great  mili¬ 
tary  strength,  because  they  declared 
that,  while  the  slaves  would  be  used  in 
raising  provisions  to  supply  their  forces, 
the  whole  white  population  capable  of 
bearing  arms  could  then  be  called  into 
the  field.  This  constituted,  as  they  de¬ 
clared,  their  great  military  strength. 
And  is  it  not  then  a  most  important 
war  measure,  to  deprive  them  of  that 
all-powerful  and  efficient  weapon : 
which,  we  have  seen,  can  only  be  done 
by  emancipation?  Now,  let  us  suppose 
that  while  we  refuse  the  use  of  the 
colored  race,  whether  bond  or  free,  in 
aid  of  the  war,  they  are  used  for  that 
purpose  by  the  South,  what  would  be 
the  result  ?  By  the  census  of  1860,  tbe 
whole  population  of  the  United  States 
was  31,445,080,  of  which  there  were 
white,  26,975,575;  free  colored,  487,- 
996;  slaves,  3,953,760;  total,  of  colored, 
4,441,756,  of  which  there  were  in  the 
seceded  States  3,653,110,  and  in  the 
loyal  States,  788,446.  Add  the  whites 
in  the  seceded  States,  5,449,463,  would 
thus  make  the  whole  population  of 
those  States,  by  the  census  of  1860, 
9,102,573.  In  the  loyal  States,  the 
whole  population  was  22,342,507 ;  of 
which  21,553,861  were  white,  and  788,- 
646  colored.  Now  then,  if  the  colored 
race,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  seceding 
States,  are  used  for  war  purposes  by 
them  and  not  by  us,  the  relative  number 
of  opposing  forces  would  be  as  fol¬ 
lows:  Loyal  States,  21,553,861 ;  seceded 
States,  9,102,573;  difference  in  favor  of 
the  Loyal  States,  12,451,288.  Now,  to 
begin  the  process,  add  to  the  whites  in 
the  Loyal  States  the  free  colored, 
■and  the  total  number  is  22,342,507 ; 


seceded  States,  9,102,573  ;  differ¬ 
ence  in  favor  of  the  Loyal  States, 
13,239,934.  Continuing  the  process,  if 
we  deduct  by  the  emancipation  policy 
the  whole  colored  population  of  the 
seceded  States,  the  result  would  be, 
Loyal  States,  22,342,507 ;  seceded 
States,  5,449,463.  But  if,  concluding 
the  process,  by  the  emancipation  policy 
we  not  only  deduct  the  colored  race 
from  the  aid  of  the  South,  but  add  it  in 
aid  of  the  Loyal  States,  the  result 
would  be,  Loyal  States,  25,995,617; 
seceded  States,  5.449,463  ;  difference  in 
favor  of  Loyal  States,  20,456,154.  Thus 
the  policy  opposed  to  emancipation  and 
to  the  use  of  the  colored  race’ by  us  in 
the  war,  makes  the  difference  in  our 
favor  as  against  the  South  only  12,451,- 
288,  whereas  the  difference  in  our  favor 
by  the  emancipation  policy  of  the  Presi¬ 
dent  is  20, 546*, 154.  Deduct  from  this 
the  above  12,451,288;  final  difference, 
8,094,866.  Thus  we  see  that,  by  the  Pres¬ 
ident’s  policy,  there  is,  in  effect,  a  gain  to 
the  Loyal  States  equivalent  to  more  than 
eight  millions  of  people,  more  than 
200,000  of  whom  are  already  soldiers 
in  the  Union  army,  all  of  whom  must 
be  disbanded  if  Mr.  Lincoln’s  policy  was 
erroneous.  Will  any  say  that  a  policy 
which  makes  a  difference  in  the  relative 
forces  of  the  two  contending  parties  of 
more  than  eight  millions  of  people  in 
favor  of  the  North,  and  which  has 
already  increased  our  army  200,000,  is 
not  a  most  important  war  measure,  aid¬ 
ing  us  to  suppress  the  rebellion  and 
save  the  Government?  and,  therefore, 
it  is  a  policy  eminently  calculated  to 
preserve  and  perpetuate  the  Union. 
Indeed,  it  is  this  measure  which  ren¬ 
ders  the  maintenance  of  the  Union  cer¬ 
tain,  and,  without  it,  the  Union  is  sub¬ 
jected  to  great  peril. 

As,  then,  the  emancipation  policy  of 
the  President  is  not  only  wise,  benefi¬ 
cent,  and  constitutional,  but  renders  cer¬ 
tain  the  preservation  of  the  Union, 
while  that  of  his  opponents  subjects  it 
to  imminent  peril,  I  go  for  the  reeleo- 
tion  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  I  go  for  him  as  a 


9 


Union  man ,  and  because  his  emanci¬ 
pation  policy  will  certainly  save  the 
Union ;  and  I  go  against  his  opponent, 
because,  however  loyal  he  may  be,  and 
however  sincere  his  desire  to  save  the 
Union,  practically  he  is  a  disunionist, 
because,  independent  of  the  Chicago 
McClellan  platform,  his  anti-emancipa¬ 
tion  and  anti-negro  policy  subjects  the 
Union  to  imminent  peril.  Now,  with 
me,  in  this,  as  in  all  preceding  elections, 
the  preservation  and  perpetuation  of 
the  Union  constituted  the  great  trans¬ 
cendent  question,  involving  the  liberty 
of  our  country  and  mankind,  and  I  can 
give  no  vote  which  subjects  it  to  the 
slightest  peril.  Save  the  Union,  and  all 
else  will  be  added  in  time  (including  the 
ultimate  downfall  of  Slavery,  which  I 
predicted  and  advocated  in  January, 
1844),  has  been  the  doctrine  of  my  life. 
To  that  doctrine  I  still  adhere,  but  sup¬ 
port  the  President’s  emancipation  policy 
now,  because  it  is  the  most  efficient,  if 
not  the  only  means  of  saving  and  per¬ 
petuating  the  Union.  I  opposed  eman¬ 
cipation  when  it  was  unconstitutional  as 
a  peace  measure ,  and  because  I  knew  it 
would  cause  civil  war,  invite  foreign 
intervention,  and  endanger  the  Union. 
I  support  emancipation  now,  because  it 
is  constitutional,  greatly  diminishes  the 
danger  of  foreign  intervention,  and  in¬ 
sures  the  maintenance  and  perpetui¬ 
ty  of  the  Union.  I  supported  Judge 
Douglas  and  opposed  the  election  of 
Mr.  Lincoln  in  1860,  because  I  believed 
it  would  imperil  the  Union.  While 
always  denying  that  his  election  would 
justify  disunion,  I  feared  that  the  rebel¬ 
lion  would  be  the  result.  In  voting 
against  Mr.  Lincoln  in  1860,  I  did  so  to 
save  the  Union  from  peril.  In  voting 
for  him  now,  it  is  to  suppress  the  re¬ 
bellion  and  maintain  the  Union.  It  is 
not  for  Mr.  Lincoln  as  a  man  (however 
worthy  he  may  be),  that  I  now  vote — 
I  vote  for  principles — I  vote  for  the 
Union — and  in  supporting  him,  I  vote 
for  the  best,  if  not  the  only  means  to 
maintain  and  perpetuate  the  Union. 

But  there  is  another  principle  of  vital 


importance  involved  in  this  election. 
The  South,  under  the  banner  of  Slavery, 
proceeded  to  secede  from  the  Union, 
immediately  after  the  result  of  the  Pres¬ 
idential  election  of  1860  was  made 
known.  South  Carolina  seceded  in 
December,  1860.  Mississippi  followed 
early  in  January,  1861,  and  the  Cotton 
States  all  followed  during  that  and  the 
succeeding  month  of  Pebruary.  Now, 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  not  and  could  not  be 
inaugurated  as  President  until  March, 
1861.  The  South  did  not  and  would 
not  wait  for  his  inaugural  address  of 
that  date  to  know,  under  the  new  con¬ 
dition  of  affairs,  what  would  be  the 
policy  of  his  Administration.  They  did 
not  and  would  not  wait  for  any  meas¬ 
ures  of  his  Administration,  much  less 
any  act  of  the  Government  or  of  Con¬ 
gress,  but  proceeded  to  secede  merely 
because  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  constitu¬ 
tionally  elected  to  the  Presidency  by 
the  people  of  the  United  States.  Such 
an  act  was  an  overthrow  of  the  great 
fundamental  principle  of  all  free  gov¬ 
ernment,  namely,  that  the  majority 
shall  govern  under  the  forms  of  the 
Constitution.  It  was  an  attack  upon 
the  right  of  suffrage,  an  assault  upon 
the  ballot  box  and  the  great  principle  of 
an  elective  President,  as  provided  in 
our  Constitution,  and  which  lies  at  the 
very  basis  of  free  institutions.  That 
principle  is  the  vital  element  of  our  ex¬ 
istence.  It  is  ‘  the  casing  air  ’  of  liber¬ 
ty.  Take  it  away,  and  freedom  in¬ 
stantly  expires.  The  right  of  suffrage  is 
the  great  American  right  of  every  citi¬ 
zen,  rich  or  poor,  humble  or  exalted. 
It  is  the  great  palladium  of  our  liberty.' 
It  is  a  Government,  like  a  mightyj^vra- 
mid,  reposing  on  its  broad  and  immova¬ 
ble  base,  the  will  and  affections  of  the 
people.  It  is  the  people’s  Government, 
and  therefore  the  people  maintain  it, 
and  with  us  two  millions  of  volunteers 
have  rushed  to  its  support.  Therefore, 
while  it  is  the  best  Government  in 
peace,  it  is  the  strongest  in  war.  But  se¬ 
cession  because  of  the  election  of  a 
President,  is  not  only  war  upon  the 


10 


Union,  but  war  upon  the  elective  fran¬ 
chise,  the  great  fundamental  principle 
of  free  government,  and  without 
which  it  is  but  a  fleeting  shadow. 
Democrats — people  of  all  parties — my 
countrymen,  while  you  are  asked  now 
by  the  Chicago  Convention  to  vote 
against  Mr.  Lincoln,  you  would  nullify 
by  that  very  vote  the  right  of  suffrage, 
because,  what  is  that  suffrage  worth, 
what  is  your  vote  but  an  empty  form,  if 
it  may  not  elect  your  President?  But 
if,  because  the  minority  who  have  voted 
against  you, dissatisfied  with  your  choice, 
can  rebel,  make  war  upon  you,  because 
you  thus  voted,  and  set  up  another 
President  for  that  minority  by  force  of 
arms,  wrhat  is  that  but  to  say  that  the 
majority  shall  not  rule ;  that  the  right 
of  suffrage  shall  be  nullified;  that  the 
Constitution,  under  which  that  vote 
was  given,  shall  be  overthrown?  This 
is  what  the  rebellion  has  done  in  at¬ 
tempting  to  destroy  the  Republic, 
merely  because  of  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lincoln.  This  arrogant  and  insolent 
slave-holding  oligarchy  would  not  even 
wait  to  hear  what  the  President  of  your 
choice  would  say.  They  treated  the 
President  of  your  choice,  and  therefore 
they  treated  you  and  the  Constitution 
under  which  you  acted,  with  scorn  and 
defiance.  So  long  as  you  'would  act 
with  them,  so  long  as  the  Northern  par¬ 
asites  would  adhere  to  the  Southern 
upas  tree  of  Slavery,  so  long  as  the 
1  mudsills  ’  of  the  North,  as  they  arro¬ 
gantly  called  you,  would  obey  the  orders 
of  their  Southern  masters,  so  long  as  you 
would  be  their  slaves,  they  would  per¬ 
mit  the  President  to  be  inaugurated. 
But  so  soon  as  you  elected  a  President 
against  their  dictation,  then  your  suffra¬ 
ges  should  be  nullified  by  the  rebellion 
of  a  minority  against  the  majority.  What 
is  this  but  to  say,  that  the  majority 
shall  not  elect  a  President,  and  thus 
render  the  right  of  suffrage  an  empty 
form,  striking  at  the  fundamental  prin¬ 
ciple  of  free  government,  and  substitu¬ 
ting  the  bayonets  of  the  minority  for  the 
ballots  of  the  majority  of  the  people? 


Freemen  of  America,  is  it  possible  that 
by  voting  against  Mr.  Lincoln  now 
because  of  the  Southern  rebellion, 
you  will  thus  declare  that  the  election 
of  a  President  by  the  people  is  not  to  be 
maintained,  but  that  his  reelection  is  to 
be  defeated,  and  that  bis  authority,  as 
your  President  and  as  your  representa¬ 
tive,  is  therefore  never  to  extend  over 
the  whole  United  States ,  because  a  re¬ 
bellious  minority  oppose  it  by  force  of 
arms?  This  is  one  of  the  transcendent 
issues  involved  in  this  contest.  It  is  in 
fact  the  great  question  whether  the  ma¬ 
jority  shall  rule  or  the  minority — 
whether  self-government  is  an  unreal 
mockery,  or  whether  it  is  indeed  a  God- 
given  right  of  man ,  born  in  the  image  of 
his  Maker.  You  voted  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
should  be  President  of  the  whole  United 
States.  That  was  your  decision  at  the 
ballot  box.  Has  it  been  obeyed?  No: 
an  arrogant  slave-holding  minority  has 
rebelled  against  it,  and,  within  the  boun¬ 
daries  of  the  area  occupied  by  that  mi¬ 
nority,  has  suppressed  your  election  by 
the  bayonet,  and  substituted  Jefferson 
Davis,  one  of  the  rebel  leaders,  in  place 
of  Abraham  Lincoln.  Within  the  limits 
of  that  rebellion,  the  power,  under  the 
Constitution,  which  you  devolved  upon 
Abraham  Lincoln,  has  been  nullified  by 
force  of  arms,  and  now,  if  you  abandon 
the  war,  or  defeat  his  reelection,  your 
choice  will  have  been  nullified,  and  he 
never  will  have  exercised  throughout 
the  United  States  the  power  given  to 
him  by  your  suffrages  under  the  Consti¬ 
tution.  Now  the  party  in  the  North 
thus  acquiescing  in  this  destruction  of 
the  right  of  suffrage,  dares  to  assume 
the  sacred  name  of  Democracy,  which 
you  know  is  but  Anglicized  Greek, 
meaning  the  power  of  the  people.  Shade 
of  the  immortal  Jackson!  the  father 
and  founder  of  the  Democratic  party, 
burst  the  cerements  of  the  Hermitage, 
and  blast  with  the  thunders  of  New  Or¬ 
leans  the  wretched  traitors  who  thus 
dare  to  profane  the  sacred  name  under 
which  you  were  chosen  President  of  the 
United  States. 


11 


But  there  is  another  grave  objection 
to  the  McClellan  platform  adopted  at 
Chicago.  It  is  its  intentional  ambiguity. 
The  Convention  was  composed  of 
unionists  and  disunionists,  of  peace  and 
war  Democrats,  as  they  style  them¬ 
selves,  and  the  platform  was  adapted  to 
suit  the  views  of  both  these  parties  in 
and  out  of  the  Convention.  It  was  a 
platform  upon  which  the  temple  of  Ja¬ 
nus  was  to  be  closed,  but  with  side 
doors  at  either  extremity,  into  one  of 
which  the  peace  men  with  their  olive 
branches  should  enter,  and  the  war 
men  in  full  military  array  in  the  other, 
and  the  lion  and  the  lamb  meet 
together  in  the  centre  in  cordial  agree¬ 
ment.  But,  it  appears  that'  the  war 
men  in  this  case  were  only  asses  in 
lions’  skins,  for  in  the  compromise  be¬ 
tween  antagonistic  principles  and  candi¬ 
dates,  the  peace  men  got  far  the  better 
of  the  bargain.  While  there  were  some 
vague  aod  glittering  generalities  in  favor 
of  the  Union,  they  were  connected  with 
conditions  which  rendered  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  the  Union  certain,  namely,  an 
armistice  and  cessation  of  hostilities,  ac¬ 
companied  by  the  false  and  flagitious 
declaration,  calculated  to  encourage  the 
enemies  of  our  country  at  home  and 
abroad,  namely,  that  the  war  to  suppress 
the  rebellion  was  a  failure.  Remember, 
soldiers,  that  the  McClellan  platform 
declares  that  your  battles  are  failures  ; 
that  your  blood  has  been  shed  in  vain ; 
that  your  arms  can  never  crush  the  re¬ 
bellion  ;  that  you  are  inferior  in  courage 
to  the  slave-holding  rebels ;  that  you 
must  admit  your  defeat,  throw  down 
your  muskets,  return  in  disgrace  to  your 
homes,  disband  the  army,  lay  up  the 
navy,  recall  Generals  Grant,  Sherman, 
Sheridan,  Meade,  and  Gilmore,  and  Ad¬ 
mirals  Farragut,  Porter,  Dupont,  Davis, 
and  Winslow,  and  leave  it  to  the  civil¬ 
ians  of  Chicago,  Yallandigham,  Har¬ 
ris,  Long,  Pendleton,  and  others,  to 
negotiate  a  peace. 

Now  what  is  an  armistice  ?  It  is  de¬ 
fined  to  be  a  suspension  of  the  war  for 
a  limited  period.  There  may  be  condi¬ 


tions  added,  but  none  are  named  in  the 
McClellan  Chicago  platform.  Of  course, 
then,  it  means  a  cessation  of  hostilities 
by  land  and  sea.  Indeed,  the  platform 
is  weaker  than  this,  for  it  proposes  di¬ 
rectly  a  ‘cessation  of  hostilities,’  not 
by  land  only,  or  by  sea  only,  but,  of 
course,  by  both ,  as  the  words  are  general. 
Now  then,  the  blockade  of  the  rebel 
ports,  and  the  capture  or  destruction 
of  blockade  runners  and  their  cargoes, 
is  war  upon  the  ocean.  This  blockade, 
then,  is  to  be  abandoned  during  the 
armistice,  for  there  is  to  be  a  cessation 
of  hostilities  upon  the  ocean  and  the 
land. 

During  this  interval  of  peace,  when 
there  is  to  be  no  blockade  of  the  South¬ 
ern  ports,  what  is  to  follow  ?  By  their 
own  accounts  and  estimates,  the  Con¬ 
federates  have  within  their  limits,  in 
cotton  (at  present  prices),  tobacco,  and 
naval  stores,  a  value  exceeding  one  bil¬ 
lion  of  dollars  in  gold.  Now  then,  so 
soon  as  the  armistice  was  agreed  upon, 
the  war  upon  the  ocean,  including  the 
blockade,  having  ceased,  the  whole  of 
this  cotton,  tobacco,  and  naval  stores, 
would  be  shipped  to  Europe,  or  partly 
to  Nassau,  on  the  way  to  Europe,  and 
this  enormous  amount  realized  by  the 
Confederate  government  in  gold.  We 
know  what  tremendous  disasters  have 
been  produced  by  the  cotton  famine  in 
England,  France,  and  other  countries. 
Now,  the  first  effect  of  such  shipments 
would  be  the  total  ruin  of  all  our  man¬ 
ufactures  of  cotton  and  other  textile 
fabrics.  But  another  still  more  serious 
result  would  follow.  We  know  that 
Louis  Napoleon  is  the  bitter  enemy  of 
the  Union  ;  we  know  that  he  has  again 
and  again  declared  that  we  could  not 
suppress  the  rebellion ;  that  he  has 
earnestly  thrice  endeavored  to  persuade 
the  British  Government  to  unite  with 
him  in  acknowledging  the  independence 
of  the  South — twice  through  efforts 
made  directly  upon  the  British  Cabi¬ 
net,  and  once  through  Roebuck  and 
Lindsay,  members  of  the  House  of  Com¬ 
mons,  to  induce  it  by  a  parliamentary 


12 


vote  to  compel  the  British  Ministry  to 
unite  with  the  Emperor  in  acknowl¬ 
edging  the  independence  of  the  South. 
That  Louis  Napoleon  is  our  hitter  ene¬ 
my,  is  proved  also  by  the  French- 
Mesican  war,  in  which  England,  and 
even  Spain,  separated  from  him.  It  is 
proved  also  by  the  diplomatic  corre¬ 
spondence  of  Jefferson  Davis,  and  by 
his  friendly  and  approving  recognition 
of  the  establishment  of  the  French 
Imperial  Government  in  Mexico.  It  is 
further  proved  by  Louis  Napoleon's 
own  letter,  in  which  he  declared,  that 
one  of  the  objects  of  the  Mexican  war 
was  the  establishment  of  the  equilib¬ 
rium  of*  the-  Latin  race  upon  the 
American  continent.  It  is  further 
demonstrated  by  the  proceedings  of 
the  French  in  Mexico,  and  especially  re¬ 
cently  at  Matamoras,  in  the  mutual  aid 
given  and  received  by  the  French  and 
Confederate  forces.  Now,  what  is  the 
meaning  of  establishing  the  equilibrium 
of  the  Latin  race  on  the  ‘ American 
continent  ’  ?  In  the  first  place,  it  means 
European  miliitary  intervention ;  in  the 
second  place,  it  means  to  embrace  not 
only  Mexico,  but  the  whole  Latin  race 
on  the  American  continent.  By  the 
Latin  race  is  included  all  Spanish  Amer¬ 
ica.  It  means,  then,  in  the  future,  if 
our  Government  is  overthrown,  that 
all  Spanish  America,  from  the  northern 
boundary  of  Mexico  to  Cape  Horn,  is  to 
be  consolidated  into  one  great  Power 
under  imperial  sway.  It  means  to  in¬ 
clude  in  this  vast  empire  the  command 
of  the  Isthmus  of  Tehauntepec,  the  route 
by  Central  America  (about  which  Louis 
Napoleon  has  written  so  much),  by  Hon¬ 
duras  and  Chiriqui,  but  more  especially 
the  Panama,  as  also  the  Atrato  routes. 

In  the  great  future,  whoever  com- 
marfds  these  routes,  especially  together 
with  that  of  the  Isthmus  of  Suez,  which 
I  visited  a  few  months  since,  and 
which  Louis  Napoleon  has  nearly  com¬ 
pleted,  will  command  the  commerce  of 
the  world,  and,  as  a  consequence,  ulti¬ 
mately  control  the  institutions  of  the 
world.  Such  are  the  tremendous  prob¬ 


lems  teeming  in  the  brain  of  Napoleon 
the  Third,  and  all,  as  he  believes,  depend¬ 
ing  upon  the  destruction  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Union.  I  speak  of  what  I  know 
from  a  residence  now  of  nearly  two 
years  in  Europe.  Thus  it  is  that  Louis 
Napoleon  intends  to  bring  us  within 
the  centrifugal  gravitation  of  the  Eu¬ 
ropean  balance  of  power.  This  won¬ 
derful  man  proposes  to  extend  thig 
system  from  the  old  continents  to  the 
new,  embracing  both,  and  thus  hold  in 
his  grasp  the  equilibrium — the  balance 
of  power  of  the  world.  We  may  well 
imagine  what  that  equilibrium  will  be 
when  Napoleon  the  Third  shall  hold 
the  balance  in  his  hands.  Already  he 
has  considerable  possessions  (insular 
and  continental)  in  North  and  South 
America,  and  Mexico,  under  Maximil¬ 
ian,  is  substantially  a  French  depend¬ 
ency.  He  holds  Algiers.  He  is  colo¬ 
nizing  Egypt  (as  I  myself  saw  this 
year)  by  his  railroads  and  canals.  He 
has  seized  and  colonized  Cochin  China 
and  Annam.  He  has  made  Italy  a  de¬ 
pendency  on  the  bayonets  of  France. 
Now  then,  under  these  circumstances, 
when  the  blockade  shall  have  termi¬ 
nated,  and  Jefferson  Davis,  who  is  quite 
as  ambitious  and  even  more  talented 
than  Louis  Napoleon,  shall  hold  in  his 
hand  more  than  a  billion  of  dollars’ 
worth  of  Southern  products  ready  for 
immediate  shipment,  may  he  not,,  and 
will  he  not  say,  through  his  most  able 
and  adroit  diplomatic  representative  at 
Paris,  ‘  Recognize  the  independence  of 
the  South,  and  all  these  products  shall 
be  shipped  for  sale  in  France,  and  to 
French  manufacturers,’  and  thus  enable 
France  to  crush  for  the  present  the 
cotton  manufacturers  of  all  the  rest  of 
the  world.  It  is  well  known  in  Paris 
that  Mr.  Slidell  is  upon  terms  of  the 
most  intimate  association  with  Louis 
Napoleon,  and  has  thoroughly  convinced 
him  that  we  cannot  suppress  the  rebel¬ 
lion.  Is  it  not,  then,  clear,  anxious  as 
Napoleon  is  for  the  success  of  the  South, 
that  he  would,  in  the  event  of  McClel¬ 
lan’s  election,  at  once  recognize  South- 


13 


ern  independence.  Indeed,  it  is  the 
boast  of  the  Confederate  leaders  in  Eu¬ 
rope,  since  the  adoption  of  the  platform 
at  Chicago,  that,  upon  the  election  of 
their  candidates,  without  waiting  four 
months  for  the  inauguration  in  March 
next,  Napoleon  will  at  once  recognize 
the  Confederate  government.  Indeed, 
I  do  not  doubt,  from  the  circumstantial 
evidence  (although  I  do  not  know  the 
fact),  that  there  is  already  a  secret  un¬ 
derstanding  between  Jefferson  Davis 
and  Napoleon  the  Third  to  recognize 
the  independence  of  the  South  upon  the 
election  of  the  Chicago  candidates. 
Why  wait  four  months,  until  the  4th  of 
March  next,  when  the  American  peo¬ 
ple,  by  indorsing  the  Chicago  platform, 
shall  have  declared  for  peace,  with  the 
additional  announcement  in  that  plat¬ 
form,  that  the  war  for  the  suppression 
of  the  rebellion  has  failed  ? 

If,  indeed,  that  war  has  failed,  and 
we  cannot  thus  suppress  the  rebellion, 
it  would  not  only  be  the  right,  but,  upon 
the  principles  of  international  law,  the 
duty  of  every  foreign  power  to  acknowl¬ 
edge  Southern  independence.  Thus  is 
it  that  the  Chicago  McClellan  platform 
invites  recognition.  What  is  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  recognition  of  the  independ¬ 
ence  of  the  South  by  France,  under  such 
circumstances  ?  It  means  war.  It 
means,  in  the  first  place,  commercial 
treaties  stipulating  great  advantages  in 
favor  of  France,  and  perhaps  other 
Powers.  It  means,  of  course,  the  over¬ 
throw  of  the  blockade,  so  as  to  carry 
out  those  treaties.  It  means  conditions 
destructive  of  our  interests,  and  favora¬ 
ble  to  the  recognizing  Powers.  It 
means  advantages  and  discriminations 
in  tariffs  and  tonnage  duties,  and  navi¬ 
gation  privileges,  which  would  exclude 
us  from  Southern  ports,  including  New 
Orleans  and  the  mouth  of  the  Missis¬ 
sippi,  and  deprive  us  of  the  markets  of 
the  South.  Such  a  recognition,  then, 
with  its  attendant  consequences,  means 
war — war  not  only  with  France,  but 
probably  with  England  and  Spain,  and 
other  Powers.  Doubtless,  upon  the 


election  of  the  Chicago  candidates,  Na¬ 
poleon  would  again  ask  the  Ministry  of 
England  to  unite  with  him  in  recogniz¬ 
ing  the  independence  of  the  South,  and 
to  participate  in  the  benefits  of  the  pro¬ 
posed  commercial  treaties.  Who  can 
say  that  England,  under  the  dangers 
and  sacrifices  incurred  by  a  refusal, 
would  again  decline  the  offer  ? 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  election  of 
the  Chicago  candidates  involves  the 
most  imminent  peril  of  war  with 
France,  if  not  with  England,  both  acting 
then  in  alliance  with  the  Confederate 
government.  That  my  country  even 
then  would  accept  the  contest  rather 
than  the  dishonor  and  ruin  of  disunion, 
I  do  believe ;  but  who  can  predict 
the  result  of  such  a  conflict?  My 
countrymen,  we  are  speedily  approach¬ 
ing  the  very  edge  of  a  dark  and  perilous 
abyss,  into  which  we  may  be  soon 
plunged  by  the  election  of  the  Chicago 
candidates.  I  implore  you  not  to  make 
the  dread  experiment.  You  must 
know  that  there  will  be  no  recognition 
of  the  independence  of  the  South  by 
France  or  England,  or  any  other  Power, 
if  Abraham  Lincoln  should  be  reelected 
in  November  next.  The  American 
people  will  then  have  loudly  pro¬ 
claimed,  through  the  ballot  box,  that 
they  can  and  will  subdue  the  rebellion 
by  force  of  arms ;  and  that  they  will 
continue  to  negotiate  from  the  mouths 
of  our  cannon,  until  the  Southern 
armies  shall  have  been  dispersed  and 
vanquished.  Upon  the  news  of  the  re- 
election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  reaching  Europe, 
the  Confederate  stock,  now  waiting 
the  success  of  the  Chicago  candidates, 
will  fall,  like  Lucifer,  to  rise  no  more. 
American  securities,  including  those  of 
the  Federal  and  loyal  State  Govern¬ 
ments,  of  railroads,  and  other  com¬ 
panies  with  real  capital,  will  all  be  im¬ 
mensely  appreciated.  The  difference 
in  favor  of  our  country,  including  the 
rise  in  greenbacks,  would  be  equivalent 
in  a  few  months  to  hundreds  of  millions 
of  dollars.  Nor  is  it  only  our  stocks 
that  will  rise  at  home  and  abroad,  but 


14 


the  national  character  will  be  im¬ 
mensely  exalted.  The  friends  of  our 
country  and  liberty  in  Europe,  includ¬ 
ing  the  grand  mass  of  the  people,  will 
echo  hack  the  exultant  shouts  of  free¬ 
dom  as  they  roll  on  from  the  Pacific  to 
the  Mississippi,  from  the  Mississippi  to 
the  lakes,  and,  bounding  from  the  glad 
Atlantic,  are  carried  by  steam  and 
lightning  to  the  shores  of  Europe.  The 
fetters  of  American  Slavery  will  be 
broken  by  such  a  result,  and  man — im¬ 
mortal  man,  of  whatever  race  or  color, 
born  in  the  image  of  his  Maker,  will 
emerge  from  chatteldom,  and  rise  to 
the  dignity  of  our  common  humanity. 

There  is  one  point  still  remaining  of 
vast  importance.  It  is  the  question  of 
Slavery,  so  far  as  it  yet  lingers  within 
our  borders.  Without  entering  upon 
other  aspects  of  that  case,  we  call  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  proposed  amendment  for  the 
purpose  of  abolishing  Slavery  on  the 
recommendation  of  Congress  and  the 
ratification  of  three  fourths  of  the 
States,  as  provided  in  the  Federal  Con¬ 
stitution.  This  is  recommended  by  Mr. 
Lincoln,  and  it  is  a  plank  in  the  Balti¬ 
more  platform.  It  passed  the  Senate  by 
a  more  than  two-thirds  vote,  but  was 
defeated,  by  the  Democrats ,  by  a  vote  of 
69  to  94,  in  the  House,  thus  failing  to 
receive  the  two-thirds  majority  of  both 
Houses  of  Congress  as  required  by  the 
Constitution.  If,  as  has  been  hereto¬ 
fore  shown,  Slavery  is  the  great  enemy 
of  the  Union,  and  was  the  sole  cause  of 
the  rebellion,  why  not  extirpate  the 
cause  of  the  war  ?  Why  not  remove 
what  may  remain  of  Slavery  after  the 
war  is  ended,  by  the  proposed  amend¬ 
ment,  as  recommended  by  Mr.  Lincoln  ? 
This  is  a  war  and  a  Union  measure,  cal¬ 
culated  to  crush  the  rebellion,  to  main¬ 
tain  the  Union,  and  to  prevent  any 
future  effort  to  effect  its  overthrow. 
This  measure,  which  would  settle  finally 
and  forever  the  Slavery  question,  will 
succeed  at  an  early  period,  if  Mr.  Lin¬ 
coln  should  be  reelected.  But  this 
measure  the  Democrats  oppose,  and 
desire  to  Tceep  openth.Q  Slavery  question, 


for  no  object  that  can  be  perceived, 
except  to  renew  the  old  party  alliance 
between  Slavery  South  and  its  Northern 
supporters,  with  a  view  to  party  tri¬ 
umphs.  If  General  McClellan  succeeds, 
Slavery,  so  far  as  it  still  exists,  will  be 
cherished,  maintained,  and  perpetuated. 
The  viper  will  be  warmed  into  life  again, 
and  although  it  might  perhaps  recoil  for 
the  present,  it  would  only  be  to  strike 
at  some  future  period  with  greater  force 
and  venom  at  the  life  of  the  Republic. 
These  men  tell  us  they  are  for  the 
Union  as  it  was.  Are  they  for  the  re¬ 
vival  of  such  scenes  as  were  perpetrated 
by  Brooks  in  the  American  Senate? 
Are  they  for  the  Kansas  frauds  and 
murders  and  forgeries,  including  the 
forgery  of  a  constitution?  Are  they 
for  the  right  of  secession,  or,  while 
they  dispute  the  right  of  a  State  to  se¬ 
cede,  do  they  deny  with  Buchanan  and 
Pendleton  the  right  of  the  Government 
to  prevent  its  secession  ?  Are  they 
against  secession,  but  against  coercion 
also  ?  Are  they  against  rebellion,  but 
opposed  to  its  overthrow  by  force  ? 
Throughout  the  South,  under  the  Union 
as  it  was,  there  was  no  freedom  of 
speech  or  of  the  press,  on  any  question 
connected  with  Slavery.  Are  they  for 
the  sale,  under  the  Union  as  it  wms,  even 
of  free  negroes  into  perpetual  bondage  ? 
Are  they  for  the  denial  of  the  rights  of 
Northern  citizens  throughout  the 
South  ?  Above  all,  are  they  for  the 
renewal  of  the  African  slave  trade,  as 
notoriously  occurred  in  1859  (during 
the  Administration  of  Buchanan),  at  Sa¬ 
vannah,  in  Georgia,  when  the  wretched 
victims,  just  stolen  from  their  native 
homes  in  Africa,  were  carried  to  Savan¬ 
nah,  and  there,  in  defiance  of  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Constitution,  openly  distributed  by 
sale  among  the  boasted  chivalry  of  the 
South  ?  If  the  Chicago  candidates  and 
their  party  are  for  these  things — if  they 
are  for  the  Union  as  it  was  in  these  re¬ 
spects,  I  am  against  them.  I  am  for  the 
Union  (as  clearly  intended  by  the  fa¬ 
thers  and  founders  of  the  Government) 
as  it  will  be  when  Slavery  (its  great. 


and,  in  fact,  its  only  domestic  foe)  shall 
have  been  entirely  extinguished.  While 
I  am  for  the  extinction  of  Slavery  as  a 
Union  and  as  a  war  measure,  I  am  con¬ 
soled  by  the  reflection  that,  while  it 
will  secure  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union, 
it  will  vastly  increase  our  wealth  and 
power,  and  advance  all  our  industrial 
and  material  interests.  For  several 
years  past  I  have  examined  this  ques¬ 
tion,  and,  in  various  essays,  published 
at  home,  but  more  especially  abroad, 
have  proved  by  official  statistics,  from 
the  censuses  of  1850  and  1860,  that, 
under  the  system  of  free  labor  and  free 
schools  which  exist  in  the  North,  as 
compared  with  the  South,  the  product 
of  the  Free  States  is  $217  per  capita,  and 
that  of  the  slaveholding  States  $96  per 
capita.  Also,  that  the  lands  of  the  South 
are  worth  $10  per  acre,  and  of  the  North 
$25  per  acre.  It  was  further  proved  by 
me,  in  those  essays,  by  the  same  official 
data,  that,  exactly  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  slaves  is  the  decreased  pro¬ 
duction  per  capita  in  the  Slave  States ; 
that  of  South  Carolina,  with  402,406 
slaves  and  291,388  whites,  being  $66  per 
capita ,  and  of  Delaware,  with  90,589 
whites  and  1,798  slaves,  being  $143  per 
capita ;  while  that  of  Massachusetts, 
with  her  sterile  soil  and  severe  climate, 
and  far  inferior  natural  advantages,  was 
$235  per  capita  ;  and  the  same  rule  was 
also  shown  to  hold  in  counties  of  the 
same  Slave  States,  those  counties  with 
few  slaves  always  producing  more  per 
capita  than  those  having  many.  The 
result  was,  as  shown  by  the  census, 
that  if  the  production  of  the  South  in 
1859  had  been  equal  per  capita  during 
the  same  year  to  that  of  the  Free  States, 
the  additional  value  of  the  Southern 
products  would  have  been  $1,531,631,- 
000  in  1859,  and  in  the  aggregate  of  the 
decade  from  1859  to  1869,  $17,873,539,- 
511,  exclusive  of  the  addition  from  the 
annual  reinvestment  of  capital.  The 
addition,  then,  to  the  value  of  the  pro¬ 
ducts  of  the  South  in  a  single  year, 
caused  by  the  substitution  of  free  for 
slave  labor,  would  be  nearly  equal  to 


our  whole  present  national  debt,  while 
in  the  aggregate  of  the  ten  years  suc¬ 
ceeding  it  would  be  nearly  ten  times 
greater  than  the  whole  national  debt, 
thus  leaving  us  far  richer  after  the  next 
census,  as  a  consequence  of  increased 
production,  notwithstanding  the  na¬ 
tional  debt,  than  if  the  rebellion  had 
never  occurred.  Thus  is  it  that  the 
ways  of  Providence  are  justified  to 
man,  and  that  Slavery  chastises  its  own 
advocates,  while  its  overthrow  brings 
increased  wealth  and  safety  and  hon¬ 
or  and  happiness  and  prosperity  to 
the  country.  While  I  do  not  advocate, 
then,  the  abolition  of  Slavery  in  defi¬ 
ance  of  the  Constitution,  because  it 
would  make  us  more  wealthy  and 
powerful,  more  honored,  happy,  and 
prosperous,  yet  I  rejoice  that  in  sup¬ 
porting  emancipation,  as  Mr.  Lincoln 
does,  as  a  Union  and  as  a  war  measure, 
the  overthrow  of  this  accursed  institu¬ 
tion  will  be  attended  with  countless 
benefits  to  my  country  and  mankind. 
Suppress  the  rebellion  by  the  over¬ 
throw  of  the  Southern  armies,  and  re¬ 
establish  the  Government  throughout 
all  our  wide  domain  upon  the  broad 
and  eternal  foundations  of  freedom, 
truth,  and  justice,  then  neither  domes¬ 
tic  traitors  nor  foreign  despots  will 
ever  dash  against  its  adamantine  base. 
There  it  will  stand,  and  stand  forever, 
the  mighty  continental  breakwater  be¬ 
tween  the  continents  of  Asia  and  of 
Europe,  against  -which  the  breakers  of 
eternal  faction,  and  the  waves  of  des¬ 
potic  power  would  dash  in  vain.  To 
that  home  of  the  oppressed,  to  that  asy¬ 
lum  of  genuine  and  universal  freedom, 
millions  from  the  Old  World  would 
then  come,  and  unite  with  us  in 
strengthening  and  maintaining  a  Gov¬ 
ernment  based  upon  the  rights  of  hu¬ 
manity,  and  sustained  by  the  affections 
of  the  people.  While  our  physical  force 
and  accumulating  wealth  would  thus 
be  rapidly  and  vastly  augmented,  our 
moral  power  would  be  increased  in  a 
still  grander  ratio.  Then  the  cry  of  ty¬ 
rants,  that  self-government  is  a  phan- 


16 


tom,  and  republics  a  failure,  would 
cease  to  oppress  the  listening  ear  of 
humanity.  Then  the  chains  would 
soon  fall  everywhere  from  the  limbs  of 
the  slave.  Then  the  reactionary  and 
feudal  party  of  Europe,  now  so  loudly 
proclaiming  republics  a  failure,  while 
exulting  over  the  anticipated  fall  of 
the  American  Union,  would  retire  dis¬ 
comfited  from  the  contest,  while  the 
rights  of  man  would  be  immensely 
promoted,  and  civilization  advance,  at 
a  single  bound,  more  than  in  the  lapse 
of  many  centuries.  The  great  liberal 
party  of  England,  headed  by  those  im¬ 
mortal  champions  Bright  and  Cobden, 
would  rouse  like  giants  refreshed  from 
their  slumber,  and  carry  the  flag  of  the 
vote  by  ballot  and  extended  suffrage 
triumphantly  throughout  the  British 
realm,  while  Ireland,  oppressed  Ireland, 
would  then  receive  the  fullest  justice. 
Then,  indeed,  all  past  differences  be¬ 
tween  England  and  America  would  be 
sunk  forever  in  fraternal  concord,  and 
the  peace  of  the  world  be  maintained. 
Then  Napoleon  the  Third,  who  keeps 
an  armv  of  600,000  men  as  a  standing 
menace  to  Europe  and  the  world,  and 
who  has  just,  for  the  present,  and  for 
the  present  only,  extinguished  in  blood 
the  freedom  of  Mexico,  must  abandon 
his  ambitious  projects,  or  shiver  his 
diadem  upon  the  adamantine  rock  of 
popular  freedom. 

But  there  are  complaints  from  the 
so-called  Democratic  party  that  the 
President,  and  especially  the  Secretary 
of  State,  have  surrendered  the  Monroe 
doctrine,  and  abandoned  Mexico  to  her 
fate.  There  is  no  truth  in  this  accusa¬ 
tion.  The  President  and  the  Secretary 
of  State,  as  regards  the  future ,  are 
wholly  uncommitted  on  this  question, 
unless,  indeed,  it  be  for  Mexico,  by  an¬ 
nouncing  that  the  people  of  the  loyal 
States  are  unanimously  in  her  favor.  I 
say  they  are  uncommitted  for  the  fu¬ 
ture,  and  the  real  objection  to  their 
course  is  this :  that  they  have  not  grat¬ 
ified  the  South  and  its  Northern  allies, 
by  engaging,  ere  this,  in  a  war  with 


France,  so  as  to  bring  her  vast  forces 
in  aid  of  the  Confederate  government. 
Indeed,  Mr.  Seward  is  cursed  everywhere 
by  the  Confederates  and  their  allies 
throughout  Europe  for  preventing  a  war, 
at  this  time ,  on  the  Mexican  question, 
between  France  and  the  United  States. 
‘  There  is  a  time  for  all  things,’  and,  as 
I  have  said  before,  our  only  question 
now,  is  the  salvation  of  the  Union ;  and 
when  that  is  secured,  will  be  the  prop¬ 
er  period  to  consider  other  subordinate 
questions,  foreign  or  domestic.  No 
man  can  speak  with  more  feeling  on 
this  question  than  myself,  for  it  is  a 
well-known  fact  that  I  earnestly  op¬ 
posed,  as  a  member  of  the  Cabinet  of 
Mr.  Polk,  the  Mexican  treaty  of  1848, 
among  other  reasons,  upon  the  sugges¬ 
tion  then  made  by  me,  that  if  we  aban¬ 
doned  Mexico,  it  would  subject  us  to 
the  danger  of  European  interference 
there  (just  as  it  has  occurred)  by  force 
of  arms.  That  treaty  was  carried  by  a 
constitutional  majority  of  only  thre8 
votes,  mainly  through  the  instrument¬ 
ality  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  who  was  against 
the  invasion  of  Mexico,  and  for  ‘  mas¬ 
terly  inactivity,’  resting  on  the  banks 
of  the  Rio  Grande,  because  he  knew  (as 
declared  in  my  Texas  letter  of  January, 
1844)  ‘  Slavery  never  could  cross  the  Rio 
Grande,’  and  that,  as  a  consequence,  all 
of  Mexico  which  we  would  permanent¬ 
ly  hold,  as  we  ought  to  have  done, 
from  Texas  to  Tehuantepec,  would, 
Mexico  having  abolished  Slavery,  have 
become  Free  States.  I  believed  also 
that  the  permanent  occupation  and 
annexation  of  Mexico  would  have  for¬ 
ever  settled  all  the  dangers  of  the  Sla¬ 
very  question,  because  it  would  have 
flanked  the  Slave  States  of  the  South¬ 
west,  by  many  powerful  Free  States  ad¬ 
jacent  on  the  Southwest,  containing 
already  seven  millions  of  people,  most 
of  whom  were  of  the  colored  race,  and 
who  would  have  fought  to  the  last 
against  the  reestablishment  of  Slavery. 

Yet,  strong  and  decided  as  is  my  op¬ 
position  to  the  course  of  Napoleon  on 
the  Mexican  as  well  as  the  Confederate 


IT 


question,  I  believe  that  the  course  of 
Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Seward  on  this 
question  has  been  marked  by  great 
courage,  devoted  patriotism,  and  the 
highest  statesmanship.  I  am  not  for 
mingling  this  or  any  other  question  of 
foreign  or  domestic  policy  with  the 
maintenance  of  the  Union,'  but  have 
only  answered  the  assaults  of  adversa¬ 
ries  on  the  Mexican  and  other  subordi¬ 
nate  issues.  This,  however,  I  must 
Bay :  that  the  treaty  with  Mexico,  by 
which  we  abandoned  that  country, 
having  been  ratified,  I  am  opposed  to 
any  violation  of  its  provisions.  While 
I  adhere  to  the  opinions  expressed  at 
the  time  by  me  against  that  treaty ; 
while  I  am  opposed  to  forcing  Mexico 
into  our  Union,  I  believe  that  Napoleon 
the  Third,  unwittingly,  by  his  invasion, 
has  caused  Mexico  soon  to  gravitate, 
by  the  overwhelming  wish  of  her  peo¬ 
ple,  into  the  arms  of  the  great  Repub¬ 
lic.  Thus  is  it  that  the  French  invasion 
will  have  settled  forever  in  our  favor  the 
question  of  the  American  equilibrium. 

I  have  published  the  views  expressed 
in  these  letters  on  consultation  with  no 
one.  They  are  my  own  individual 
opinions,  and  I  only  am  responsible  for 
them.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  Ad¬ 
ministration  may  differ  from  some  of 
them,  but  I  am  just  as  independent 
of  the  Administration  as  they  are  of 
me.  I  am  not,  and  never  was ,  a  Re¬ 
publican,  and  while  I  have  been  falsely 
charged  in  Europe  with  abandoning 
my  free-trade  principles,  in  consequence 
of  the  constant  and  earnest  support 
given  by  me  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  a  majority  of  his 
Cabinet  of  1863  had  been  Democrats, 
and  supported  the  Tariff  of  1846.  But 
the  Tariff  is  a  very  subordinate  ques¬ 
tion,  compared  with  the  salvation  of 
the  Union.  Besides,  if  the  Tariff  of 
1846  was  changed,  it  was  not  until  the 
2d  of  March,  1861,  and  the  change  was 
caused  intentionally,  by  the  previous 
withdrawal  of  the  Senators  and  Repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  seceded  States  from 
both  Houses  of  Congress. 

2 


I  have  another  answer  to  this  charge. 
I  was  for  the  free  list  of  the  Tariff  of 
1842,  as  distinctly  stated  in  my  first 
annual  Treasury  report,  so  as  to  increase 
our  exports,  especially  of  dyed  cotton 
goods,  thereby  producing  a  correspond¬ 
ing  augmentation  of  our  imports  and 
revenue.  That  portion  of  the  act  of 
1846  was  defeated  by  Mr.  Calhoun, 
much  to  my  regret,  injury,  and  annoy¬ 
ance. 

Besides,  the  South,  by  its  rebellion, 
and  by  thus  forcing  on  us  an  enormous 
Federal  debt,  has  rendered  impossible 
for  many  years  any  other  Tariff  but  that 
which  will  bring  the  largest  revenue. 
Until  this  debt  is  paid,  we  must  have 
the  highest  Tariff  for  revenue,  and  it 
can  be  so  arranged  as,  while  yielding, 
when  the  Union  is  restored,  at  least 
$150,000,000  annually  in  gold,  at  the 
same  time  to  furnish  all  incidental  aid 
to  American  industry  that  could  be  de- 
stred. 

I  have  thus  far  discussed  the  ques¬ 
tion  as  confined  to  the  contest  between 
the  respective  candidates  for  the  Presi¬ 
dency  of  the  United  States.  But  let 
those  who  think  of  supporting  General 
McClellan  for  the  Presidency  remem¬ 
ber  that,  in  sustaining  him,  they  must 
necessarily  vote  for  Mr.  Pendleton  for 
the  Vice  Presidency.  McClellan  and 
Pendleton  are  the  Siamese  twins  of 
Chicago,  inseparable,  and  all  who  vote 
for  the  one,  vote  at  the  same  time  for 
the  other.  No  voter  can  cast  his 
suffrage  in  this  contest,  except  by 
voting  for  an  electoral  ticket,  and  the 
same  electors  for  General  McClellan 
who  may  be  chosen  in  any  State,  are 
to  vote  for  Mr.  Pendleton  for  the  Vice 
Presidency.  In  other  words,  if  General 
McClellan  is  chosen  President,  Mr. 
Pendleton  is  elected  at  the  same  time 
to  the  Vice  Presidency  of  the  United 
States.  Now,  recollect,  that  the  Vice 
President  not  only  presides  over  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  gives 
the  casting  vote  in  that  body,  but  that, 
in  case  of  the  death  of  the  President, 
the  Vice  President  becomes  President 


18 


of  the  United  States.  Now,  two 
Presidents  of  the  United  States,  within 
the  last  twenty-three  years,  have  died 
during  their  term  of  office  (Harrison 
and  Taylor),  and  one  of  them  within  a 
month  after  his  inauguration.  In  both 
these  cases,  the  Vice  Presidents  chosen 
on  the  same  electoral  ticket  with  the 
President,  reversed  the  policy  of  the 
President  elect.  Tyler  reversed  the 
policy  of  Harrison,  and  Fillmore  re¬ 
versed  the  policy  of  Taylor.  Why  may 
not  the  same  thing  again  occur,  if  Mr. 
Pendleton,  by  the  death  of  General 
McClellan,  should  succeed  him  as  Pres¬ 
ident  ?  This  renders  an  inquiry  into 
the  course  and  views  of  Mr.  Pendleton 
a  question  of  vital  importance. 

Now,  Mr.  Pendleton,  as  his  votes  and 
speeches  show,  is  against  the  war  for 
the  Union,  and  has  declared  the  coer¬ 
cion  of  a  seceding  rebel  State  not  only 
‘  impracticable'  but  4  unconstitutional.’ 
His  words  are,  in  his  speech  in  Con¬ 
gress  of  the  18th  January,  1861,  after 
most  of  the  Cotton  States  had  seceded  : 

‘  Sir  (he  then  said)  the  whole  scheme 
of  coercion  is  impracticable.  It  is  con¬ 
trary  to  the  genius  and  spirit  of  the 
Constitution.’  In  accordance  with  these 
anti-coercion  and  anti-war  views,  he 
continued  to  vote  against  the  prosecu¬ 
tion  of  the  war,  and  against  all  the 
great  measures  passed  for  that  purpose. 
He  further  then  said,  4  If  your  differ¬ 
ences  are  so  great  that  you  cannot  or 
will  not  reconcile  them,  then,  gentle¬ 
men,  let  the  seceding  States  depart  in 
peace  ;  let  them  establish  their  govern¬ 
ment  and  empire,  and  work  out  their 
destiny  according  to  the  wisdom  which 
God  has  given  them.’  This  is  exactly 
the  doctrine  of  Jefferson  Davis,  and  of 
all  the  rebel  leaders  :  4  Let  us  alone.’ 
Lei  us  alone,  while  we  overthrow  the 
Government  and  dissolve  the  Union ; 
let  us  alone ,  while  we  seize  the  mouth 
of  the  Mississippi,  and  tear  down  or 
shoot  down  the  flag  of  the  Union  from 
every  fort  of  the  South.  This  is  their 
language,  and  the  Chicago  Convention 
might  just  as  well  have  nominated 


Jefferson  Davis  as  George  H.  Pendle¬ 
ton  as  their  candidate  for  the  Vice 
Presidency  of  the  United  States.  Such 
a  nomination  of  an  avowed  disunion! st 
shows  the  true  spirit  of  the  Chicago 
Convention,  and  that  all  their  general 
expressions  of  devotion  to  the  Union 
were  mere  empty  sounds,  calculated  to 
secure  votes,  but  utterly  false  and  hyp¬ 
ocritical  ;  for,  while  indulging  in  these 
pharasaical  expressions  of  love  for  the 
Union,  they  nominate,  at  the  same 
time,  as  their  candidate  for  the  Vice 
President,  an  avowed  secessionist  and 
disunionist.  We  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  abstract  opinions  or  wishes  of 
Mr.  Pendleton  as  regards  the  Union. 
Jefferson  Davis  repeatedly,  and  up  to 
the  very  period  of  secession,  expressed 
quite  as  much  devotion  to  the  old  flag 
and  to  the  Union  as  Mr.  Pendleton. 
But  Mr.  Davis  soon  became  the  head 
of  the  rebellion  which  Mr.  Pendleton 
declares  we  ought  not,  and  have  no 
constitutional  power,  to  suppress  by 
force.  For  all  practical  purposes,  then, 
Mr.  Pendleton  is  just  as  much  a  seces¬ 
sionist  and  disunionist  as  Jefferson  Da¬ 
vis.  Nor  can  it  be  alleged  that  Mr. 
Pendleton  has  changed  these  views. 
On  the  contrary,  as  late  as  this  year  he 
voted  in  Congress  against  the  test  resolu¬ 
tion  of  Green  Clay  Smith,  of  Kentucky, 
declaring  4  that  it  is  the  political,  civil, 
moral,  and  sacred  duty  of  the  people  to 
meet  the  rebellion,  fight  it,  crush  it, 
and  forever  destroy  it.’  Now  then,  the 
Chicago  Convention,  with  a  full  knowl¬ 
edge  of  these  votes  and  speeches,  nom¬ 
inated  Mr.  Pendleton  for  the  Vice  Pres¬ 
idency,  and  contingently  for  the  Presi¬ 
dency  of  the  United  States.  They  knew 
full  well  that  Mr.  Pendleton  had  de¬ 
clared  the  effort  to  crush  the  rebellion 
impracticable  and  unconstitutional,  and 
that,  therefore,  if  the  power  they  pro¬ 
posed  to  give  him  were  ratified  by  his 
election,  he  could,  and  under  his  oath 
of  office  to  support  the  Constitution,  lie 
must,  disband  our  armies,  terminate 
the  war,  and  permit  the  dissolution  of 
the  Union  to  be  consummated ;  or  he 


19 


might  repeat  his  own  words  of  1861 : 
Let  the  seceding  States  depart  in 
peace ;  let  them  establish  their  gov¬ 
ernment  and  empire,  and  work  out 
their  destiny  according  to  the  wisdom 
which  God  has  given  them.’  It  is, 
then,  a  sufficient  objection  to  the  Chi¬ 
cago  candidates  that  Mr.  Pendleton,  one 
of  the  candidates,  inseparably  connect¬ 
ed  with  General  McClellan  on  the 
same  electoral  ticket,  is,  as  we  have 
seen,  opposed  to  the  war,  and  for  all 
practical  purposes  as  much  a  secession¬ 
ist' and  disunionist  as  Jefferson  Davis. 
This  being  clear,  if  General  McClellan 
is  really  for  the  war  to  save  the  Union, 
by  crushing  the  rebellion,  he  must  re¬ 
fuse  to  run  on  the  same  electoral  ticket 
with  Mr.  Pendleton ;  and  if  he  does  not, 
the  people  and  history  will  assign  to 
him  the  same  position.  He  cannot 
lend  his  name  to  aid  the  election  of 
Mr.  Pendleton  on  the  same  ticket  with 
himself,  and  profess  devotion  to  the 
Union. 

There  is  yet  another  point  on  which 
I  would  say  a  word.  It  is  this  :  From 
the  proceedings  of  the  Canada  Confed¬ 
erates,  and  their  Northern  allies,  and 
the  outgoings  of  the  Richmond  press, 
I  conclude  that  their  last  suggestion  is 
this :  two  or  more  confederacies,  North¬ 
ern,  Southern,  Middle,  New  England, 
Northwest,  Mississippi,  and  Pacific. 
They  are  to  be  united  by  free  trade  be¬ 
tween  them  all,  and  by  an  alliance 
offensive  and  defensive.  That  is,  when¬ 
ever  any  one  of  these  confederacies  go 
to  war,  we  are  to  join  them  in  the  con¬ 
flict.  Namely,  if  the  Southern  Confed¬ 
eracy  wishes  to  conquer  and  annex 
Cuba  or  Porto  Rico,  or  to  conquer  and 
extend  slavery  to  Central  America,  and 
war  follows,  we  are  to  join  them  in  the 
war,  and  sustain  them  with  our  blood 
and  treasure.  If  so,  the  temple  of 
Janus  will  never  be  closed  on  our  con¬ 
tinent,  and  war  will  be  our  normal  con¬ 
dition — a  war  not  declared  by  us,  or 
in  our  own  interest,  but  by  the  South, 
as  a  foreign  government.  Such  an  alli¬ 
ance  is  visionary,  ruinous,  and  imprac¬ 


ticable.  It  is  simply  a  scheme  to  secure  • 
Southern  independence. 

Then,  as  to  the  free  trade  to  be  se¬ 
cured  by  treaty  between  the  several 
confederacies.  Recollect  that  each  of 
these  nations  is  to  be  foreign  and  inde¬ 
pendent,  and  to  have  its  separate  trea¬ 
ties  with  foreign  Powers.  How  long 
would  such  treaties  and  such  an  alli¬ 
ance  last  ?  Why,  the  flag  of  the 
South  would  scarcely  float  over  the 
mouth  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Missis¬ 
sippi,  before  the  conflict  with  us  of 
views  and  measures  would  begin, 
nursed  and  promoted  by  foreign  Pow¬ 
ers,  where  each  of  the  new  confedera¬ 
cies  would  have  its  separate  ministers, 
representing  distinct  and  discordant 
interests.  When  have  such  alliances  or 
treaties  lasted  even  for  half  a  century  ? 
Where  are  all  the  leagues  of  antiquity 
or  of  modern  Europe  ?  Where  are  all 
such  leagues  and  treaties  even  of  the 
last  century  ?  Where  is  our  own  alli¬ 
ance  with  France  of  1778  ?  Where  all 
such  alliances  and  treaties  even  of  the 
first  half  of  the  present  century  ?  They 
are  all  extinguished.  Experience  proves 
— the  voice  of  history  proclaims — that 
treaties  or  alliances  between  indepen¬ 
dent  Powers  are  always  of  short  dura¬ 
tion,  being  soon  swept  before  the  gust 
of  contending  passions,  or  melted  in 
the  crucible  of  conflicting  interests. 
Where  is  the  celebrated  alliance  and 
treaty  of  1814  and  1815  of  Vienna,  be¬ 
tween  the  great  European  Powers,  es¬ 
tablishing  forever,  by  a  congress,  the 
balance  of  European  power  ?  Is  there 
a  single  clause  now  in  force  ?  Where 
is  the  clause  securing  France  to  the 
Bourbons,  and  guaranteeing  forever 
against  the  reign  of  any  of  the  Bona¬ 
parte  family  ?  Where  are  the  states 
whose  independence  was  forever  guar¬ 
anteed  by  those  treaties  ?  Where  are 
Parma  and  Modena  and  Tuscany  ? 
Where  is  Lombardy,  where  the  Ro¬ 
magna,  Naples,  and  the  Two  Sici¬ 
lies  ?  Where  are  the  duchies  of  Lauen- 
burg,  Schleswig,  and  Holstein,  and 
where  the  treaty  of  1852  in  regard  to 


/ 


20 


*  lir.SS 


them  ?  All,  all  have  passed  away,  just 
as  would  our  proposed  treaties  or 
alliances.  The  first  war  would  sweep 
them  out  of  existence.  No,  my  coun¬ 
trymen  ;  as  Washington,  the  father  of 
his  country,  most  t#uly  told  us  in  his 
Farewell  Address :  ‘  To  the  efficacy 
and  permanency  of  your  Union,  a  Gov¬ 
ernment  for  the  whole  is  indispensable. 
No  alliance,  however  strict  between  the 
parts,  can  be  an  adequate  substitute; 
they  must  inevitably  experience  the 
infractions  and  interruptions  which  all 
alliances,  in  all  time,  have  experienced.’ 

Washington  thus  foresaw  and  warned 
us  against  this  most  insidious  proposi¬ 
tion  to  divide  our  country  into  separ¬ 
ate  confederacies,  no  matter  how  strict 
the  alliances  between  them  might  be ; 
and  let  us  adopt  his  counsels. 

Is  it  not  strange,  while  Italy  and 
Germany  seek,  in  Italian  and  German 
unity,  relief  from  the  ruin  and  oppres¬ 


sion  of  so  many  independent  states  and 
governments,  and  are  each  making  ad¬ 
vances  to  that  glorious  consummation, 
that  we  are  asked  to  adopt  the  reac¬ 
tionary  policy,  and  separate  glorious 
Union  into  distinct  confederacies,  soon 
to  be  followed  by  grinding  taxation, 
by  immense  standing  armies,  and  per¬ 
petual  wars  ? 

And  now  then,  my  countrymen,  I 
bring  this  letter  to  a  close,  imploring 
you  to  give  no  vote  which  will  subject 
the  Union  to  the  slightest  peril.  Come, 
then,  my  friends,  of  all  parties,  come, 
Republicans,  and  Whigs,  and  Demo¬ 
crats,  and  Irish  and  German  and  na¬ 
tive  citizens,  trampling  under  our  feet 
all  past  issues,  and  all  old  party  names 
and  prejudices,,  and,  standing  on  this 
broad  basis  of  principle,  let  us  vote, 
not  for  men  or  parties,  but  for  the  sal¬ 
vation  and  perpetuity  of  the  Union. 

R.  J.  Walker. 


S33IHd  HOd  ON3S 

A  'N  ‘^UGS1V  'i3aj'S  U93J0  \Z-ZZ 

Haaaiw  a  aaoHVH 

ah  aaaaxoviaNVK 

sjJpu|gdi.|jl),°|33|ii1A\ 

S.M3T1IW 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3  0112  073422161 


T* 

r 

'•  v>-„ 

3R 

•  •<  .  r 

?^Tr- 

J  r' '  *  S.  * 

s^r»; 

1 

rr  ■ 

v  '■-< 
’• 

:^.;t 

Pr 

<:W 

■\  •« 
■■  'f.  ■ 

( "‘ 

-j 

O’ 

>. 

iiV 

♦i 

K  . 

r.  ii'  i 

** 

K  £ 

^2kJu^&  y?*  I 

V 

;»>.■  \v  - 

;T, 

—  • 

r  • 

*  v . 

1-  ! 

.  ,\ 

Ik 

SfK.  ..\ 

yir*»  > 

•  H  ■»  -*  > 

^  1"  ‘  f"“,lN 

VI 

.  £ 

'♦’  i 

X 

#•1 

'•v$ . 

t*-'*  y 

y  %? 

i*  '  ■■.j? 

?w  ;• 

V' 

Al  ,  i»  V.  1 

A. 

W  / 

v.fc-  . 

•  i  v  y 

'1>  ji 

•  •_  r 

< 

r*» 

f 

J 

